Today the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) turns 75 - a milestone few laws reach without controversy. At the same time, I turn 75 myself. As with all things that age, the ECHR has been tested, challenged and criticised. Yet it remains vital: not simply as a legal instrument but as a moral compass for our democracy.
The ECHR was born in the aftermath of World War II, crafted by those who had witnessed the devastation wrought by unchecked power, designed to constrain even the mightiest states. Over decades it has stayed true to its role as a living instrument, evolving jurisprudence, and adapting to new technologies while protecting increasingly diverse societies. Yet the past few years have seen a surge of hostility, among political leaders, commentators, and even some lawyers, who now argue that the ECHR is a constraint on sovereignty, a foreign court overstepping its role, or a source of unjust interference.
I know these criticisms well: in 2011 I was one of two dissenting commissioners when David Cameron’s Bill of Rights Commission proposed a ‘British Bill of Rights’ that risked hollowing out rights for ordinary people. We warned then that any new framework should reinforce the Convention, not supplant or weaken it.
But today, as proposals swirl to dilute the UK’s obligations or even exit, we must remember something more: in Northern Ireland the Convention is not optional - it is woven into one of the most delicate peace settlements of the past century. The Good Friday Agreement embeds Convention rights in law and holds them up as foundational to trust, reconciliation, and stability. To imagine removing them is to overlook the peace and progress that has been made.
The Convention is also fundamental to the defence of democracy and the rule of law in Europe. Much of my work is focused on justice and accountability for Russian war crimes in Ukraine and for the return of thousands of abducted Ukrainian children. The people of Ukraine are fighting to stay within the framework of laws and common decency that the Convention embodies; it would be ruinous to those efforts for the UK to undermine them by walking away from it.
Some assert that the ECHR has grown unpredictable, that its jurisprudence is a moving target, that it constrains domestic policy too heavily. Yes; the court must, and does, interpret the Convention as a 'living instrument'. But that does not make it capricious. The UK’s recently retired judge on the court, Tim Eike, has commented that he 'hardly recognises' the good work of Strasbourg in all the undue politicised criticism it faces. We should not discard the mechanism because it is demanding, but rather respect its role in keeping power in check.
As Amnesty International and others have shown, this is not just the view of lawyers or campaigners. The British public overwhelmingly believes in equal rights as a universal safeguard. Consistent polling shows that more than 80% of people in the UK agree that rights must apply to everyone equally, even to those whose views or actions they may profoundly disagree with. More than 70% say politicians should not be able to pick and choose which rights they uphold. Those instincts, fairness, equality before the law, and restraint on power, are precisely what the ECHR embodies.
The alternative to the ECHR is not comfortable sovereignty or unfettered domestic discretion. It is legal vacuums, uneven protections, and rights contingent on political mood. If the UK rejects the Convention, it risks joining a club only of states like Russia or Belarus, hardly a badge of honour.
On this 75th anniversary, let us resist nostalgia and reactionary impulses. Let us instead affirm that the ECHR remains an essential bulwark; for privacy, fair trial, free speech, equality, and dignity. Let us also reaffirm that in Northern Ireland, its role is not theoretical but foundational. Any political gambit that suggests otherwise is not only legally misguided, but morally hazardous.
The ECHR is not perfect. It must continue to evolve, to be scrutinised and to respect subsidiarity and the weight of democratic judgment. But to jettison it would be to discard the scaffold on which modern rights are built. Seventy-five is not too old, it is battle-tested, resilient and necessary. Let us ensure it remains so for another 75 years.
Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws (Helena Kennedy KC) is a barrister and Labour peer
5 Readers' comments